Hope in the Dark: Four Tests for the Pro-Democracy Movement in 2026

What gives us reason to believe in these difficult times for our democracy? In Hope in the Dark, Democracy Fund’s president, Joe Goldman, lifts up hope and bright spots—drawing attention to forward movement and the tangible signs of progress being made toward a democracy that enables all people to thrive.

The future is not yet written, but it could be bright. This is the hope for the pro-democracy movement: not the passive hope that things will simply work out, but the active hope that treats uncertainty as an invitation to shape what comes next.

We need that kind of hope now. The authoritarian project in the United States has advanced further and faster than most anticipated. Federal agencies have been weaponized against communities and institutions. Freedom of speech has been threatened by the capitulation of corporate media to political pressure. The rule of law has been bent and broken as the police and military surveil everyday people and occupy cities. Civil society is under sustained attack.

Yet the outcome is not predetermined. Movements of joy and resistance have challenged each of these attacks.

This series, Hope in the Dark, will explore what it means to maintain hope while honestly confronting the realities of the situation facing our democracy. It will offer strategic analysis for nonprofits and philanthropies defending democratic institutions. It will insist that despair is a stance we cannot afford—not because the threats aren’t real but because too much depends on our continued engagement. The name is taken from Rebecca Solnit’s meditation on hope, a title she in turn borrowed from Virginia Woolf, who wrote, “The future is dark, which is on the whole, the best thing the future can be.” A dark future is unwritten and remains open to our influence, our choices, and our collective action.

Four Tests to Determine Our Democracy’s Viability

If there is no accountability for refusing to comply with court orders, then we can’t claim to live in a country that abides by the rule of law.

Our democracy has already moved into being a competitive authoritarian system in which the playing field is uneven and our country less free. Here, I propose four tests for the viability of our democracy that we must pass in 2026. If we fail any of them, then that unfairness may well get locked in, potentially for decades to come, on the path to authoritarian consolidation. If we pass them, we earn the opportunity to create a society that is more open, free, and representative of all Americans. We will not be guaranteed this future, but we will at least have a chance.

Each of these tests considers a dire threat that pro-democracy philanthropy must confront and prioritize to prevent us from failing. These four tests will resurface in future articles in this column as I continue to assess our nation’s health, the steps we must take, and the path that we are on.

Test 1: Will Our Courts Uphold the Rule of Law?

The recent Supreme Court ruling striking down President Trump’s executive order imposing tariffs is an example of how courts can function as a check on the powers of the president. Yet, to assess the health of our system, we must look beyond just the highest court and focus on the actions of lower courts. The New York Times found that only 25 percent of 431 district court rulings last year supported the administration’s policies, a remarkable rejection by the judiciary.

Our threshold for this test is if district courts start to significantly change their behavior by allowing some of the administration’s blatant attacks on freedoms through. And we must pay attention to whether court rulings are being respected. At least 35 times since August 2025, federal judges have ordered the administration to explain why it should not be punished for violating their orders on immigration cases. If there is no accountability for refusing to comply with court orders, then we can’t claim to live in a country that abides by the rule of law.

To support the courts, philanthropy must ensure that the courageous legal groups, such as Democracy Forward, that have led over 600 lawsuits against the administration over the past year, have the funding they need. These organizations advance the pro-democracy movement by using litigation, policy and public education, and regulatory engagement to slow or stop unlawful attempts at intimidation and abuses of power.

Test 2: Will Attacks on Our Communities Backfire?

The experiences of Los Angeles; Washington, DC; Chicago; Minneapolis; and other communities nationwide have revealed an authoritarian playbook in use. The violence we have witnessed is strategic: It aims to make people afraid, fracture coalitions, and demonstrate that resistance carries consequences. Massive federal resources have flowed to ICE and US Customs and Border Protection (CBP), which are now being deployed not just to enforce immigration law but to intimidate potential opposition, terrorize communities of color, and chill everyday civic engagement and voter participation.

This playbook will continue to be used. The threshold question is whether communities will face these attacks isolated and unprepared, or whether they will be adequately organized and have the capacity to legally and peacefully respond in ways that make the attacks backfire, as they have in Minneapolis. We must recognize that the advocates on the front lines are exhausted. They have carried enormous burdens with inadequate resources, and we cannot simply expect more of them.

History offers guidance: Authoritarian tactics lose power when they generate more opposition than compliance. Philanthropy is well-positioned to help by delegitimizing the attacker and using legal, peaceful strategies to strengthen communities under siege. We can do this by using our presence across cities and regions to convene key stakeholders before crises arrive, share lessons learned from cities that have faced these attacks, support organizing infrastructure, and help build rapid-response networks that are prepared rather than reactive.

Test 3: Will Civil Society Leaders and Organizations Remain Free and Independent?

Free and independent civil society is the beating heart of our democracy. It consists of the wide range of groups that operate outside of government, from faith-based organizations to labor unions to local community groups to public charities. These groups are the vehicle through which the public engages in our civic life and reflect the rich diversity of our country. If their voices are silenced, we cease to be an open society.

Adequate funding for legal defense, security, and crisis support is not optional. It is essential to maintain a robust and dynamic civil society.

Over the past year, organizations like the Democracy Protection Network and Democracy Security Project stepped up to provide preventative training, legal defense, security assistance, communications support, and crisis counsel to nonprofits facing unwarranted scrutiny. What began as an emergency response has become an indispensable support system that allows organizations to continue their work even when targeted.

This infrastructure faces a crisis as it seeks to grow to match the scale and scope of the threats facing nonprofits. The organizations that have become essential lifelines for targeted nonprofits are themselves facing significant funding gaps in 2026. Meanwhile, the federal government has signaled its intention to escalate its campaign against civil society.

The goal here is straightforward: Ensure that this infrastructure survives and grows. Champions of democracy must not be made examples of through unjust prosecutions. The chilling effect of watching colleagues face legal jeopardy without adequate defense would be devastating. It would accomplish the authoritarian goal of silencing opposition without requiring the government to actually win in court. Adequate funding for legal defense, security, and crisis support is not optional. It is essential to maintain a robust and dynamic civil society.

Test 4: Will We Have Free and Fair Elections?

Elections remain the ultimate tool and test of democratic accountability. The 2026 midterms represent a critical opportunity for voters to weigh in on the direction of the country at a time of great change. Free and fair elections in 2026 are not just important. They may determine whether democratic accountability is possible in the future.

The authoritarian project succeeds by dividing opposition and convincing each sector it can protect itself by staying quiet while others are targeted. The counterstrategy is equally clear: Build coalitions broad enough and strong enough that attacks on one become attacks on all.

Anti-democratic forces are attempting to undermine the integrity and representativeness of the 2026 elections in many ways, from trying to block mail-in voting to the federal government’s attempts to control local election administration. The nonpartisan organizations that form the backbone of our election infrastructure—those that train poll workers, protect voter access, combat disinformation, and ensure accurate vote counts—face unprecedented challenges. Yet groups across the country report that funding is not flowing to them at the pace the moment demands.

Early money matters enormously in the work to protect elections. It allows organizations to hire and train staff, develop response plans, build relationships with local officials, and prepare for the specific challenges they will face in their jurisdictions. Money that arrives in the months before the election cannot accomplish what money arriving by the previous winter can. The philanthropic community must move resources to organizations working on elections by the end of April if we want the voting public’s voices to be safely and truly heard, and for organizations to be positioned to defend the integrity of November’s elections.

Get Off the Sidelines and Build a Big Tent Coalition

These four tests are interconnected. Communities that are prepared to respond effectively to attacks become part of a broader coalition. Organizations that are protected from unjust prosecution remain available to support election integrity. Fair elections create accountability that constrains further authoritarian overreach. And a broad coalition makes all of this work more sustainable and more powerful.

The path is simple, but not easy: We lose when we go it alone, and we win when we stick together.

The authoritarian project succeeds by dividing opposition and convincing each sector it can protect itself by staying quiet while others are targeted. The counterstrategy is equally clear: Build coalitions broad enough and strong enough that attacks on one become attacks on all.

Minneapolis has demonstrated what this can look like. When ICE escalated its tactics in the city, it faced opposition not just from immigrant rights advocates but from an extraordinary coalition that included faith communities, business leaders, media organizations, neighbors, and a wide range of nonprofits from afterschool programs to food pantries. A red line was drawn—not by one sector alone, but by many standing together. This is the template we need to replicate.

Philanthropy has a role to play in building these bridges. We can convene across sectors—bringing together faith, business, labor, education, media, entertainment, and others—in service of a common project toward peace, humanity, care, and freedom for all. That is democracy at work.

The work of coalition building requires care and intentionality. Different sectors have different languages, different concerns, different red lines. Building a genuine coalition means listening as much as advocating, finding common ground rather than demanding conformity, and creating space for partners to participate in ways that fit their communities and constituencies.

We have a rare opportunity. The overreach of the past year has alienated constituencies that might otherwise have remained on the sidelines. Calling them into a common project of defending democratic principles and practices could reshape the political landscape in ways that make the authoritarian project untenable.

As we bear witness to the results of the tests, I’ll continue exploring specific aspects of this work: what we’re learning, what’s working, where we’re falling short, and how we can do better. Joy is the work; community is the work; getting people together and celebrating what we have and building what we want will be the focus here. I welcome your responses, your critiques, and your own hopes in the dark.